Let’s talk about BBC

[Pblakeney]

The extended and harrowing recording of an Médecins Sans Frontières witness on the BBC Radio 4 today was very much first hand.

So, not a journalist but a citizen reporter.

Or a Hamas propagandist according to the Israeli side, no doubt. An account which somewhat relies on the fact that they've taken great pains to keep reporters out.

Precisely, so 3rd hand. Plus your 3rd paragraph explains why I'm skeptical. "According to the Israeli side". 😂🤪😂
No. I do not trust one word that comes from the Israeli side as they are proven liars. Nor do I trust Hamas. This is why independent reporters should be allowed in. Ask yourself, why are they not? Still unclear on how the BBC are complicit.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Please explain how as their reporters are not allowed in. All information is 3rd hand.

Are you being weirdly tongue in cheek or are you somehow assuming that I meant the BBC are directly involved?
Obviously I didn't mean directly complicit, that would be an absurd claim. The BBC has consistently given precedence to the Israeli version of events.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&q=bbc bias on gaza reporting

https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Still unclear on how the BBC are complicit

See above.

 

[spen666]

Are you being weirdly tongue in cheek or are you somehow assuming that I meant the BBC are directly involved?
Obviously I didn't mean directly complicit, that would be an absurd claim. The BBC has consistently given precedence to the Israeli version of events.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&q=bbc bias on gaza reporting

https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel

So you make things up & when pulled ip over it you claim you never meant what you said.

 

[Pblakeney]

Are you being weirdly tongue in cheek or are you somehow assuming that I meant the BBC are directly involved?
Obviously I didn't mean directly complicit, that would be an absurd claim. The BBC has consistently given precedence to the Israeli version of events.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&q=bbc bias on gaza reporting

https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel

So what did you mean when you said that the BBC were complicit?
It is impossible to give unbiased reports when only supplied with biased information.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Precisely, so 3rd hand. Plus your 3rd paragraph explains why I'm skeptical. "According to the Israeli side". 😂🤪😂
No. I do not trust one word that comes from the Israeli side as they are proven liars. Nor do I trust Hamas. This is why independent reporters should be allowed in. Ask yourself, why are they not? Still unclear on how the BBC are complicit.

Perhaps I'm being particularly obtuse this morning but I don't understand, when BBC Radio4 is playing a person's account of conditions in the Gaza Strip, how that is 3rd hand.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

So what did you mean when you said that the BBC were complicit?
It is impossible to give unbiased reports when only supplied with biased information.

Read the links above please.

 

[Pblakeney]

Read the links above please.

Well, if you believe that everything is biased then there is no point in reading anything.
Not sure how that will help.

 

[Pblakeney]

Perhaps I'm being particularly obtuse this morning but I don't understand, when BBC Radio4 is playing a person's account of conditions in the Gaza Strip, how that is 3rd hand.

Perhaps I'm being particularly obtuse by pointing out that the whole area does not have any first hand reporting.
Playing someone's account is not first hand. I'm fairly sure that the other side could play a contradictory account.

 

[C R]

I'm fairly sure that the other side could play a contradictory account.

MSF are a very well respected organisation. Other than Israeli shills, I doubt that anyone doubts the veracity of the testimony broadcast by radio 4.

 

[C R]

Personally I find the criticism of the BBC grossly unfair. The criticism should centre on the jewish chronicle plants that make the journalists bend over backwards to give Israel an overly inflated presence.

Edited for spelling.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Perhaps I'm being particularly obtuse by pointing out that the whole area does not have any first hand reporting.
Playing someone's account is not first hand. I'm fairly sure that the other side could play a contradictory account.

The account was mediated but that's in the nature of media, and it applies equally to accredited journalists' accounts (if any were allowed into that hell).

 

[Pblakeney]

MSF are a very well respected organisation. Other than Israeli shills, I doubt that anyone doubts the veracity of the testimony broadcast by radio 4.

Which is why I was/am confused about the BBC being "complicit". No problem with anything else, but that baffles me.

 

[C R]

Which is why I was/am confused about the BBC being "complicit". No problem with anything else, but that baffles me.

Yep, it isn't the BBC per se, notice how rude Israeli interviewees are to BBC journalists. The problems is the jewish chronicle plants finagling the editorial policy and forcing self flagelating apologies.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Yep, it isn't the BBC per se, notice how rude Israeli interviewees are to BBC journalists. The problems is the jewish chronicle plants finagling the editorial policy and forcing self flagelating apologies.

Do they not work for the BBC?